points range and weight loss

I rarely go over but most often eat right at the top, Lee
kittykat <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Who eats over their points range and still loses weight

thanks marion

I can't do it. When I was losing (deliberately), I know
that if I ate over my points range it would catch up with
me sooner or later. Sometimes not in that week, but the
week after.

--
Julie.
93.5/72.3/74 (WW)/72 (Personal) kg
93.5/73./162.8 (WW)/158 (Personal) lb

Here's our FAQ: didian.comasdwwOpen ↗ and welcome
notice: geocities.comindex.htmlOpen ↗

"kittykat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Who eats over their points range and still loses weight

thanks marion

I'm sure there might be a few lucky ones that can do that.
For me, I lose best when I stick to my minimum number of
points and only use some of the flex points during the week.

"kittykat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Who eats over their points range and still loses weight

thanks marion

I have to guess that WW has the points down pretty well in
bridging the weight-ranges (25 pound steps, I believe) to
allow a loss for most individuals. I would have to guess,
also, that those who need to follow WW do not have extra-
fast metabolisms in the first place and so sticking with the
points is important as a general rule. But start to throw in
exercise beyond the normal and folks have to come up with
what does work for them.

Which does lead me to somewhat question the change to Flex
Points (in the US) but I think that was part marketing
strategy (they needed something new for both old members and
to draw folks the older program did not attract) and part a
realization that the low end (I think 18 points) for those
shorter folks was apparently uncomfortable and hard to
maintain. So they upped the values by 2 points, I think, for
each weight range. That may have slowed weightloss but that
alone is not unhealthy, so acceptable. Flex points also did
make celebrations potentially less stressful since you could
have all of those flex-points at one sitting.

kittykat said:

Who eats over their points range and still loses weight

thanks marion

kittykat said:

Who eats over their points range and still loses weight

I've been limiting what I eat to 2000 Calories a day. And
I can't say that I do a very good job at limiting myself
🙂 When I started i lost about 2 pounds a week, and
that's reduced now to just under 1 pound a week on
average. If I were to do more cardio I'd be back to 2
pounds a week I guess.

Whats 2000 calories in points? I guess it's 40+ which I
think is way more than WW allows at 196 pounds(22-27). And
even more than WW allows at 273 pounds (28-33)!

It's possible that WW is targetted more at women, so the
totals for men are slightly low, and so I get away with it?

In any case I reckon I'm pretty accurate in measuring
calories, and maybe WW assumes that people underestimate
quite a bit?

I'd be interested in what other people eat - especially men.

Ray

--
rmnsuk
273/196/182

I suspect that the change might have been based on feedback
from some members. I know that under the 1-2-3 program, some
members would use a weekly point range, rather than a daily
one. It still gives you the framework of how much is too
much, but with more flexibility. Also, some members would do
"retro-banking" when they went over their daily points and
made it up later in the week. Flex Points removes the need
to do either.

(Of course, you're right about the change for the sake of
change. It's a well-known marketing phenomenon called a
Product Lifecycle. Products do well for a while,
stabilize and then begin to drop off. To keep growing,
marketers change the product. Which is why we have Diet
Coke with Lemon.)

Best, Diane
--
182.6/182.6/165 mini/150 LT

On Fri, 07 May 2004 08:03:05 -0700, Fred <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I have to guess that WW has the points down pretty well in bridging
the weight-ranges (25 pound steps, I believe) to allow a loss for most
individuals. I would have to guess, also, that those who need to
follow WW do not have extra-fast metabolisms in the first place and so
sticking with the points is important as a general rule. But start to
throw in exercise beyond the normal and folks have to come up with
what does work for them.

Which does lead me to somewhat question the change to Flex Points (in
the US) but I think that was part marketing strategy (they needed
something new for both old members and to draw folks the older program
did not attract) and part a realization that the low end (I think 18
points) for those shorter folks was apparently uncomfortable and hard
to maintain. So they upped the values by 2 points, I think, for each
weight range. That may have slowed weightloss but that alone is not
unhealthy, so acceptable. Flex points also did make celebrations
potentially less stressful since you could have all of those
flex-points at one sitting.

kittykat said:

Who eats over their points range and still loses weight

thanks
marion

Breakfast:

A bowl of cereal that varies almost daily except when I make
a pot of oatmeal which lasts about a week. Probably about a
cup to a cup and a quarter of cereal. Anywhere from 3/4 C to
a cup of fat free (generally) milk or soy milk.

Lunch: about 3/4 breast of chicken broiled in strips (from a
teriaki place so I don't know if they marinade it prior but
if so, it is light and nothing sticky remains on the
chicken) but with NO sauce including about 3/4 cup of white
rice. Salad with a fork dipped in the dressing. Cup of Soup.

Or a pastrami sandwich on wholewheat, lots of veggies on the
sandwich and mustard (no mayo). I have to guess points and I
have kept the guess LOW but it worked during the entire
weightloss regime so I stick with it. I eat half the
sandwich as lunch and the other half as another lunch or
dinner (and have been known to divide the second half in
half again for smaller lunch and dinner). It is a subway
type serving. I do know (yikes!) that they weigh the
pastrami and the entire pastrami is 7 ounces (way high
points if only looking up the meat) so half is 3.5 ounces.

Snacks during those days - apple or pear or pretzels mid-
morning and mid-afternoon.

Dinner varies. Reasonably large baked sweet/yam/white potato
- plain, with salt/pepper. Or about a cup of kasha. (rice or
pasta is for restaurants these days and I limit how much
even then) Fish or shrimp or scallops in a reasonable (not
small) dose - sometimes sauteed with veggies and only a
teaspoon of olive oil. Red meat I weight at about 3 oz.
Veggies - brocc/cauliflower/brussel sprouts most everyday,
and maybe salad or tomato, carrots. Beets, asparagus other
as the mood hits.

Evening snacking can get out of hand. But usually dried
fruit AND a skinny cow (2 points mostly) and sometimes
whatever is within vacuuming distance (G)

Cheese which use to be a big snack is rare.
Orange/grapefruit juice which I consumed in large quantities
is now rare. Chocolate still gets in but not like it did.

I don't do calories so I really don't know. Get a range of
exercise mid-week but blow off lots of steam on weekends in
hiking/biking/x-country skiing.

I'm shorter than that tall guy (_YOU_) in the photo!!!!

ray miller said:

kittykat said:

Who eats over their points range and still loses weight

I've been limiting what I eat to 2000 Calories a day. And
I can't say that I do a very good job at limiting myself
🙂 When I started i lost about 2 pounds a week, and
that's reduced now to just under 1 pound a week on
average. If I were to do more cardio I'd be back to 2
pounds a week I guess.

Whats 2000 calories in points? I guess it's 40+ which I
think is way more than WW allows at 196 pounds(22-27). And
even more than WW allows at 273 pounds (28-33)!

It's possible that WW is targetted more at women, so the
totals for men are slightly low, and so I get away with it?

In any case I reckon I'm pretty accurate in measuring
calories, and maybe WW assumes that people underestimate
quite a bit?

I'd be interested in what other people eat -
especially men.

Ray

"Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have to guess that WW has the points down pretty well in
bridging the weight-ranges (25 pound steps, I believe) to
allow a loss for most individuals. I would have to guess,
also, that those who need to follow WW do not have extra-
fast metabolisms in the first place and so sticking with
the points is important as a general rule. But start to
throw in exercise beyond the normal and folks have to come
up with what does work for them.

Which does lead me to somewhat question the change to Flex
Points (in the US) but I think that was part marketing
strategy (they needed something new for both old members
and to draw folks the older program did not attract) and
part a realization that the low end (I think 18 points)
for those shorter folks was apparently uncomfortable and
hard to maintain. So they upped the values by 2 points, I
think, for each weight range. That may have slowed
weightloss but that alone is not unhealthy, so acceptable.
Flex points also did make celebrations potentially less
stressful since you could have all of those flex-points at
one sitting.

Our leader said that one of the reasons that they added the
2 points is that they found that many people were not
eating their mininum and not losing. Forcing them to eat a
minium each day helps people eat enough to keep from going
into starvation mode. And yes, it certainly has made
celebrations and eating out a lot easier with a bunch of
points to use at one time.

"ray miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

kittykat said:

Who eats over their points range and still loses weight

I've been limiting what I eat to 2000 Calories a day. And
I can't say that I do a very good job at limiting myself
🙂 When I started i lost about 2 pounds a week, and
that's reduced now to just under 1 pound a week on
average. If I were to do more cardio I'd be back to 2
pounds a week I guess.

Whats 2000 calories in points? I guess it's 40+ which I
think is way more than WW allows at 196 pounds(22-27). And
even more than WW allows at 273 pounds (28-33)!

It's possible that WW is targetted more at women, so
the totals for men are slightly low, and so I get away
with it?

In any case I reckon I'm pretty accurate in measuring
calories, and maybe WW assumes that people underestimate
quite a bit?

I'd be interested in what other people eat -
especially men.

Shouldn't you be dropping your total calorie intake as
you lose the weight? Maybe if you drop it down to 1500
you'd start losing at the original 2lb per week rate.
Just a thought.

the way I got it figured at your weight you would be eating 24 points a day
plus if you divided up your flex points that would make it 29 a day, so you
are talking about 11 per day if you just go with calories, but this does not
take into account the added points for fat or the deduction for the fiber on
the us plan, and I actually think if the European plan is used there are
many items that are less points than the us plan, I think one plan says that
any amount of potatoes is 2 points, and I say, if it is working for you then
it is the right thing to do, Lee
ray miller <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

kittykat said:

Who eats over their points range and still loses weight

I've been limiting what I eat to 2000 Calories a day. And
I can't say that I do a very good job at limiting myself
🙂 When I started i lost about 2 pounds a week, and
that's reduced now to just under 1 pound a week on
average. If I were to do more cardio I'd be back to 2
pounds a week I guess.

Whats 2000 calories in points? I guess it's 40+ which I
think is way more than WW allows at 196 pounds(22-27). And
even more than WW allows at 273 pounds (28-33)!

It's possible that WW is targetted more at women, so
the totals for men are slightly low, and so I get away
with it?

In any case I reckon I'm pretty accurate in measuring
calories, and maybe WW assumes that people underestimate
quite a bit?

I'd be interested in what other people eat -
especially men.

Ray

--
rmnsuk
273/196/182

and I forgot, some of that 11 would also be used up with activity points,
Lee
ray miller <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

kittykat said:

Who eats over their points range and still loses weight

I've been limiting what I eat to 2000 Calories a day. And
I can't say that I do a very good job at limiting myself
🙂 When I started i lost about 2 pounds a week, and
that's reduced now to just under 1 pound a week on
average. If I were to do more cardio I'd be back to 2
pounds a week I guess.

Whats 2000 calories in points? I guess it's 40+ which I
think is way more than WW allows at 196 pounds(22-27). And
even more than WW allows at 273 pounds (28-33)!

It's possible that WW is targetted more at women, so
the totals for men are slightly low, and so I get away
with it?

In any case I reckon I'm pretty accurate in measuring
calories, and maybe WW assumes that people underestimate
quite a bit?

I'd be interested in what other people eat -
especially men.

Ray

--
rmnsuk
273/196/182

Good points. I imagine that no matter what program WW
creates, members will still use their own creative powers to
modify them anyway
(g). FLEX points is probably a good way to allow more
individual creativity.

dcb said:

I suspect that the change might have been based on feedback
from some members. I know that under the 1-2-3 program,
some members would use a weekly point range, rather than a
daily one. It still gives you the framework of how much is
too much, but with more flexibility. Also, some members
would do "retro-banking" when they went over their daily
points and made it up later in the week. Flex Points
removes the need to do either.

(Of course, you're right about the change for the sake of
change. It's a well-known marketing phenomenon called a
Product Lifecycle. Products do well for a while,
stabilize and then begin to drop off. To keep growing,
marketers change the product. Which is why we have Diet
Coke with Lemon.)

Best, Diane